1
|
Ayala-de Miguel C, Jiménez-Castro J, Sánchez-Vegas A, Díaz-López S, Chaves-Conde M. Third-line treatment and beyond in metastatic colorectal cancer: What do we have and what can we expect? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2024; 202:104454. [PMID: 39043356 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2024] [Revised: 07/11/2024] [Accepted: 07/13/2024] [Indexed: 07/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Colorectal cancer remains the third most common cancer worldwide and the second cause of cancer-related death. Treatment advances and precision oncological medicine for these tumours have been stalled in comparison to those for other common tumours such as lung and breast cancer. However, the recent publication of the SUNLIGHT trial results with the trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102)-bevacizumab combination and the irruption of new molecular targets with guided treatments have opened new possibilities in third-line metastatic colorectal cancer management. Anti-EGFR rechallenge, anti-HER2 targeted therapies or the promising results of Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), are some of the available options that may modify what is presumably third-line colorectal treatment. Hereby, we present the evidence of the different treatment options in third-line colorectal cancer and beyond, as well as the possibilities of sequencing them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlos Ayala-de Miguel
- Servicio Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Virgen de Valme, Ctra, de Cádiz Km 548,9, Seville C.P. 41014, Spain.
| | - Jerónimo Jiménez-Castro
- Servicio Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Virgen de Valme, Ctra, de Cádiz Km 548,9, Seville C.P. 41014, Spain.
| | - Adrián Sánchez-Vegas
- Servicio Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Virgen de Valme, Ctra, de Cádiz Km 548,9, Seville C.P. 41014, Spain.
| | - Sebastián Díaz-López
- Servicio Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Virgen de Valme, Ctra, de Cádiz Km 548,9, Seville C.P. 41014, Spain.
| | - Manuel Chaves-Conde
- Servicio Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Virgen de Valme, Ctra, de Cádiz Km 548,9, Seville C.P. 41014, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Waheed MT, Ruel N, Whelan RL, Fakih M, Fong Y, Deperalta D, Merchea A, Sun V, Krouse R, Dellinger TH, Raoof M. Impact of PIPAC-Oxaliplatin on Functional Recovery, Good Days, and Survival in a Refractory Colorectal and Appendiceal Carcinomatosis: Secondary Analysis of the US PIPAC Collaborative Phase 1 Trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2024:10.1245/s10434-024-15980-9. [PMID: 39271567 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15980-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2024] [Accepted: 07/23/2024] [Indexed: 09/15/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel, minimally invasive, safe, and repeatable method to treat carcinomatosis. Evidence regarding the clinical benefit (quality of life and survival) of PIPAC compared with that of conventional standard therapy (ST) is lacking. METHODS This is the secondary analysis of the phase 1 US-PIPAC trial for refractory colorectal and appendiceal carcinomatosis. A PIPAC cohort was compared with a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients receiving ST. The primary outcome was number of good days (number of days alive and out of the hospital). The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and objective functional recovery (daily step count). RESULTS The study included 32 patients (PIPAC, 12; ST, 20) with similar baseline characteristics. Compared with the ST cohort, the PIPAC cohort had lower median inpatient hospital stays (> 24 h) within 6 months (0 vs 1; p = 0.015) and 1 year (1 vs 2; p = 0.052) and higher median good days at 6 months (181 vs 131 days; p = 0.042) and 1 year (323 vs 131 days; p = 0.032). There was no worsening of HRQoL after repeated PIPACs. Step counts diminished immediately after PIPAC but returned to baseline within 2-4 weeks. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a favorable association between receipt of PIPAC and OS (median, 11.3 vs 5.1 months; p = 0.036). CONCLUSION Compared with ST, PIPAC was associated with higher number of good days, reduced hospitalization burden, and longer OS without a negative impact on HRQoL with repeated PIPACs. These findings are foundational for evaluation of PIPAC in a randomized clinical trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nora Ruel
- Computation and Quantitative Medicine, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | | | - Marwan Fakih
- Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Yuman Fong
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | | | - Amit Merchea
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Virginia Sun
- Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Robert Krouse
- Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Thanh H Dellinger
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
| | - Mustafa Raoof
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van de Vlasakker VCJ, Lurvink RJ, Wassenaar EC, Rauwerdink P, Bakkers C, Rovers KP, Bonhof CS, Burger JWA, Wiezer MJ, Boerma D, Nienhuijs SW, Mols F, de Hingh IHJT. Comparing patient reported abdominal pain between patients treated with oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) and primary colorectal cancer surgery. Sci Rep 2023; 13:20458. [PMID: 37993560 PMCID: PMC10665337 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-47510-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 11/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases. Previously, our study group reported that patients experienced abdominal pain for several weeks after PIPAC-OX. However, it is unknown how this compares to abdominal pain after regular colorectal cancer surgery. To provide some perspective, this study compared the presence of abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX to the presence of abdominal pain after primary tumor surgery. Patient reported abdominal pain scores (EORTC QLQ-CR-29), from two prospective, Dutch cohorts were used in this study. Scores ranged from 0 to 100, a higher score represents more abdominal pain. Abdominal pain at baseline and at four weeks after treatment were compared between the two groups. Twenty patients who underwent PIPAC-OX and 322 patients who underwent primary tumor surgery were included in the analysis. At baseline, there were no differences in abdominal pain between both groups (mean 20 vs. 18, respectively; p = 0.688). Four weeks after treatment, abdominal pain was significantly worse in the PIPAC group (39 vs 15, respectively; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.99). The differential effect over time for abdominal pain differed significantly between both groups (mean difference: 19 vs - 3, respectively; p = 0.004; Cohen's d = 0.88). PIPAC-OX resulted in significantly worse postoperative abdominal pain than primary tumor surgery. These results can be used for patient counseling and stress the need for adequate analgesia during and after PIPAC-OX. Further research is required to prevent or reduce abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX.Trial registration CRC-PIPAC: Clinicaltrails.gov NCT03246321 (01-10-2017).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincent C J van de Vlasakker
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Robin J Lurvink
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
- Department of Research, Netherlands Cancer Registry, IKNL, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Emma C Wassenaar
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Paulien Rauwerdink
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Checca Bakkers
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Koen P Rovers
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Cynthia S Bonhof
- Department of Research, Netherlands Cancer Registry, IKNL, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, CoRPS - Centre of Research on Psychological Disorders and Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Jacobus W A Burger
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Marinus J Wiezer
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Djamila Boerma
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Simon W Nienhuijs
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Floortje Mols
- Department of Research, Netherlands Cancer Registry, IKNL, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, CoRPS - Centre of Research on Psychological Disorders and Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Ignace H J T de Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
- Department of Research, Netherlands Cancer Registry, IKNL, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
- GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Daniel SK, Sun BJ, Lee B. PIPAC for Gastrointestinal Malignancies. J Clin Med 2023; 12:6799. [PMID: 37959264 PMCID: PMC10650315 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216799] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Revised: 10/19/2023] [Accepted: 10/23/2023] [Indexed: 11/15/2023] Open
Abstract
The peritoneum is a common site of metastases for gastrointestinal tumors that predicts a poor outcome. In addition to decreased survival, peritoneal metastases (PMs) can significantly impact quality of life from the resulting ascites and bowel obstructions. The peritoneum has been a target for regional therapies due to the unique properties of the blood-peritoneum barrier. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have become accepted treatments for limited-volume peritoneal disease in appendiceal, ovarian, and colorectal malignancies, but there are limitations. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) improves drug distribution and tissue penetration, allowing for a minimally invasive application for patients who are not CRS/HIPEC candidates based on high disease burden. PIPAC is an emerging treatment that may convert the patient to resectable disease, and may increase survival without major morbidity, as indicated by many small studies. In this review, we discuss the rationale and benefits of PIPAC, as well as sentinel papers describing its application for gastric, colorectal, appendiceal, and pancreatobiliary PMs. While no PIPAC device has yet met FDA approval, we discuss next steps needed to incorporate PIPAC into neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment paradigms, as well as palliative settings. Data on active clinical trials using PIPAC are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara K. Daniel
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ezanno AC, Malgras B, Pocard M. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, reasons for interrupting treatment: a systematic review of the literature. Pleura Peritoneum 2023; 8:45-53. [PMID: 37304159 PMCID: PMC10249753 DOI: 10.1515/pp-2023-0004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2023] [Accepted: 03/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) gives encouraging results in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The current recommendations require at least 3 sessions of PIPAC. However, some patients do not complete the full treatment course and stop after only 1 or 2 procedures, hence the limited benefit. A literature review was performed, with search terms including "PIPAC" and "pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy." Content Only articles describing the causes for premature termination of the PIPAC treatment were analysed. The systematic search identified 26 published clinical articles related to PIPAC and reporting causes for stopping PIPAC. Summary The series range from 11 to 144 patients, with a total of 1352 patients treated with PIPAC for various tumours. A total of 3088 PIPAC treatments were performed. The median number of PIPAC treatments per patient was 2.1, the median PCI score at the time of the first PIPAC was 19 and the number of patients who did not complete the recommended 3 sessions of PIPAC was 714 (52.8%). Disease progression was the main reason for early termination of the PIPAC treatment (49.1%). The other causes were death, patients' wishes, adverse events, conversion to curative cytoreductive surgery and other medical reasons (embolism, pulmonary infection, etc…). Outlook Further investigations are necessary to better understand the causes for interrupting PIPAC treatment and also improving the selection of patients who are most likely to benefit from PIPAC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne-Cecile Ezanno
- Department of digestive surgery, Begin Military Teaching Hospital, Saint Mandé, France
| | - Brice Malgras
- Department of digestive surgery, Begin Military Teaching Hospital, Saint Mandé, France
- French Military health Service Academy, Ecole du Val de Grâce, Paris, France
| | - Marc Pocard
- Department of digestive surgery, La Pitié Salpétrière Hospital, Paris, France
- INSERM, U965 Cart unit, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Graversen M, Detlefsen S, Ainsworth AP, Fristrup CW, Knudsen AO, Pfeiffer P, Tarpgaard LS, Mortensen MB. Treatment of Peritoneal Metastasis with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: Results from the Prospective PIPAC-OPC2 Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:2634-2644. [PMID: 36602663 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-13010-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2022] [Accepted: 12/09/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a local treatment for peritoneal metastasis (PM). Prospective data are scarce and evaluation of treatment response remains difficult. This study evaluated the use of the Peritoneal Regression Grading score (PRGS) and its prognostic value. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a prospective, controlled phase II trial in patients with PM from gastrointestinal, gynaecological, hepatopancreatobiliary, primary peritoneal, or unknown primary cancer. Patients in performance status 0-1, with a non-obstructed gastrointestinal tract, and a maximum of one extraperitoneal metastasis were eligible. Colorectal or appendiceal PM had PIPAC with oxaliplatin, other primaries had PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Biopsies were taken at each PIPAC and evaluated using the PRGS. Quality-of-life questionnaires were reported at baseline and after three PIPACs. RESULTS One hundred ten patients were treated with 336 PIPACs (median 3, range 1-12). One hundred patients had prior palliative chemotherapy and 45 patients received bidirectional treatment. Complete or major histological response to treatment (PRGS 1-2) was observed in 38 patients (61%) who had three PIPACs, which was the only independent prognostic factor in a multivariate analysis. The median overall survival (mOS) from PIPAC 1 was 10 months, while patients with PM from gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer had a mOS of 7.4, 16.7, and 8.2 months, respectively. Global health scores were significantly reduced, but patients were less fatigued, nauseated, constipated, and had better appetite after three PIPACs. CONCLUSIONS PIPAC with oxaliplatin or cisplatin and doxorubicin was able to induce a major or complete histological response during three PIPACs, which may provide significant prognostic information, both at baseline and after treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin Graversen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. .,Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. .,OPEN-Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Region of Southern Denmark, Denmark. .,OPAC-Odense Pancreas Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. .,Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
| | - S Detlefsen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,OPAC-Odense Pancreas Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - A P Ainsworth
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,OPAC-Odense Pancreas Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - C W Fristrup
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,OPAC-Odense Pancreas Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - A O Knudsen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - P Pfeiffer
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,OPAC-Odense Pancreas Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - L S Tarpgaard
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - M B Mortensen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,OPAC-Odense Pancreas Center, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Baggaley AE, Lafaurie GBRC, Tate SJ, Boshier PR, Case A, Prosser S, Torkington J, Jones SEF, Gwynne SH, Peters CJ. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): updated systematic review using the IDEAL framework. Br J Surg 2022; 110:10-18. [PMID: 36056893 PMCID: PMC10364525 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac284] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2022] [Revised: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 07/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Alice E Baggaley
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - Sophia J Tate
- Department of Anaesthesia, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Piers R Boshier
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Amy Case
- Department of Cancer Services, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Susan Prosser
- Department of Library Services, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Jared Torkington
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sadie E F Jones
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sarah H Gwynne
- Department of Cancer Services, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Christopher J Peters
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|